State v. Estrada
2013 ND 79
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Gadeco appeals a district-court affirmation of the Industrial Commission’s remand order upholding a 200% risk penalty against Gadeco for failing to timely participate in Slawson’s Coyote 1-32H well project.
- The July 8, 2009 invitation to participate listed surface location, depth, and estimated costs; it warned of a risk penalty if no timely election.
- Slawson amended the notice on July 15, 2009 to change surface location and spud date but asserted the completion location and costs remained substantially the same.
- Gadeco elected to participate on August 19, 2009 and sent a payment; Slawson returned the check claiming the election was untimely because the deadline had passed.
- The Commission later on remand found the invitation complied with regulations and allowed the penalty; the district court had previously reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the remand decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the invitation complied with NDAC 43-02-03-16.3(1) | Gadeco argues changes to location, costs, and spud date required a new invitation. | Slawson/Industrial Commission argue surface location is not the location; costs/spud date are flexible. | Yes; invitation complied under the rule as interpreted. |
| Whether changes were immaterial so a new invitation was unnecessary | Gadeco contends changes were material enough to require a new invitation. | Commission found changes informational/insubstantial. | Materiality not shown; changes deemed informational and not requiring new invitation. |
| Whether the 30-day election deadline is mandatory | Gadeco argues some flexibility allowed by regulation. | Deadline is mandatory to protect operational costs. | Mandatory; election must be received within 30 days. |
| What standard governs review and interpretation of the regulation | N/A | N/A | Plain language controls; Commission’s interpretation sustained under substantial evidence review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanson v. Indus. Comm’n, 466 N.W.2d 587 (N.D. 1991) (substantial evidence standard and deference to IC findings)
- Hystad v. Indus. Comm’n, 389 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 1986) (limits on review of administrative agency decisions)
- Boumont v. Boumont, 691 N.W.2d 278 (N.D. 2005) (statutory construction; harmonization of regulations)
- Christl v. Swanson, 2000 ND 74, 609 N.W.2d 70 (N.D. 2000) (language and context in statutory/regulatory interpretation)
- Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Waltz, 423 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 1988) (mandatory nature of certain regulatory terms)